Ezra-Nehemiah: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching

By Mark A. Throntveit

Studies in the books of Ezra-Nehemiah have tended to become bogged down with such questions as, "Who came first, Ezra or Nehemiah, and were they contemporaries? When did Ezra make his journey to Jerusalem, how many trips did he make, and which route did he take?" In this commentary, the author undertakes a theological reading which emphasizes its character as narrative and story. He avoids rearranging the text and, with the exception of chapter five of Nehemiah, he seeks to understand the narrative as it was received. In general, Mark Throntveit avoids an overly historical approach to the text and presents a clear picture of Ezra and Nehemiah.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press
• Release date: Sep 3, 2012
• ISBN: 9781611641745

Mark A. Throntveit

Mark A. Throntveit is Professor of Old Testament at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. He also serves as Book Review Editor for Word and World.

Book preview

Introduction

The editorial policy defined for this series, which stresses the integration of exegesis and hermeneutical reflection into one readable expository essay without a separate movement through the various exegetical steps, promises closer articulation of the text’s significance for the life of faith and its relation to the church. The emphasis upon sections of text that are used in teaching and preaching, rather than individual verses and words, indicates its commitment to the interrelatedness and message of biblical books as a whole.

History or Story? On Reading Ezra–Nehemiah

Ezra–Nehemiah, however, presents particular challenges with regard to this editorial policy. While we rarely hear the story of Ezra–Nehemiah proclaimed from the pulpit, as our primary source for the history of the restoration these books have enjoyed considerable scholarly attention. Yet it is precisely in the area of history that Ezra–Nehemiah is commonly regarded as bristling with problems: Who came first, Ezra or Nehemiah? When did Ezra make his journey to Jerusalem? How many journeys did he, in fact, make? Under which Artaxerxes did he go? Were Ezra and Nehemiah contemporaries? If so, how is it that they never refer to each other or to the other’s work? Though these questions have exercised commentators and historians for generations, they are still vigorously debated without consensus.

This is especially evident in the vexing relationship between Ezra and Nehemiah. The traditional view holds that Ezra preceded Nehemiah, arriving from Babylon in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7–8). If this ruler was Artaxerxes I (465–424 B.C.), this would be 458 B.C. Nehemiah’s return, which is reasonably secure, occurred some thirteen years later in 445 B.C.

Many scholars, however, question this sequence on the basis of several apparent discrepancies and place Ezra’s return after Nehemiah, in 398 B.C., maintaining that the ruler in question was Artaxerxes II (404–360 B.C.).

Other scholars insist that a 428 B.C. date best explains the evidence. This dating depends on textual emendation of Ezra 7:7–8, from the seventh year to the "thirty-seventh year" on the basis of haplography. The discussion of this matter is extremely complex. While the 398 B.C.E. date earlier enjoyed a modest consensus, recent works tend to favor the traditional dating (see Kidner, pp. 146–158).

In the past scholars such as C. C. Torrey and W. Rudolph, recognizing these historical problems in the narrative, especially the problems that arise from the interleaving of the Ezra material (Ezra 7–10; Nehemiah 8–10) with that of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1–7, 11–13), attempted to resolve them by positing an originally tripartite work structured by the activities of the three great leaders of the postexilic period. Zerubbabel was assigned the task of rebuilding the temple, Ezra reinstituted the law, and Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem. All three successfully completed their missions despite opposition, and for all three the completion of their tasks was marked by a great assembly. Rearrangement of the text to its original order revealed the following schematic outline:

A. Zerubbabel (538–515 B.C.)

1. Reconstruction of the temple (Ezra 1:1–6:15)

2. Assembly for celebration and Passover (Ezra 6:16–22)

B. Ezra (458–457 B.C.)

1. Reinstitution of the Law (Ezra 7–8, Nehemiah 7:73b—8:18, Ezra 9–10)

2. Assembly for fasting and confession (Nehemiah 9–10)

C. Nehemiah (446–433 B.C.)

1. Reconstruction of the walls and repopulating of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 1:1–7:73a, 11:1–12:26)

2. Assembly and dedication (Nehemiah 12:27–13:3)

Appendix: Cultic reforms of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 13:4–31)

Despite the problems involved with such massive rearrangement of the text, various refinements of this position have dominated the literature until quite recently. Currently, however, concern for the final form of biblical material is growing as scholars become increasingly frustrated with the results of a more diachronic approach. (For a helpful review the interested reader is referred to the recent commentaries of Williamson, Blenkinsopp, and Clines.)

One of the reasons for the apparently insoluble nature of these historical problems lies in the questionable presupposition that the material has been ordered in accordance with historical or chronological criteria. But as R. J. Coggins says:

For him [the Chronicler] the maxim, first things first meant, not as it might for us, a chronological order, but an order of importance. The temple must come first, then the purifying of the community, then the building of the outer walls of the city, and so finally all could reach a grand climax in the reading of the law (p. 107).

A theological reading of the material that takes account of its character as narrative, as story, and concentrates on the final form of the text, would obviate the need to answer several of the preceding historical questions.

The Plan of the Commentary

This commentary, then, will usually avoid rearrangements of the text. With the exception of Nehemiah 5, which is out of place in terms of both a historical and a literary reading of the text, the commentary will seek to understand the narrative as it has been received.

This commentary will also usually avoid an overly historical approach to the text that seeks to determine what really happened. As is becoming clear, ancient historians have very little, if any, interest in such matters. Their concern was rather to

press forward paradigms, privileged symbols, and patterns, through which their readers might meaningfully, indeed consolingly, bring the past down into their present and launch themselves successfully into the future. The assumption of the biblical historians is that who or what Israel is may be found in what Israel has been, and that the core of what Israel has been lies in the intrigue and challenge of its bond with the divine mystery (Carmody, Carmody, and Cohn, p. 413).

One such paradigm encountered in these books depicts the crucial theological moments of the restoration as three parallel returns: under Zerubbabel (Ezra 1–6), Ezra (Ezra 7–10), and Nehemiah (Neh. 1:1–7:3), each of which resulted in a different project of reconstruction, namely, the temple, the community, and the walls. All three share a progression:

initial return under the divinely prompted authorization of the Persian crown, followed by

nearly constant opposition to reconstruction, and

the overcoming of the opposition with divine aid.

This paradigm, with its dual emphasis upon return and reconstruction, suggests a structure for Part One of the commentary: Return and Reconstruction (Ezra 1:1—Neh. 7:3). The overriding concern of this initial section, as revealed in each of the three returns and building projects, is to demonstrate the returned community’s continuity with the past. This concern perhaps best explains the several allusions to the exodus that pepper the narrative.

If Part One links the three returns and reconstruction projects in an attempt to establish the community’s continuity with the past, Part Two of the commentary, Renewal and Reform (Neh. 7:4–12:43), sees these three areas of community concern in dire need of renewal and reform if the community is to have any share in the future. This concern perhaps best explains why the dedication of the walls is delayed in the narrative until Nehemiah 12:27ff., after the reforms have had their effect in the renewal of the people and their institutions.

As satisfying as this concern for past and future may be, the text will not allow us to end on the optimistic note of the joyous dedication. In what is best regarded as a coda, Nehemiah 12: 44–13:31 (5:1-19), refuses to relieve the tension between reform and subsequent relapse that has characterized the work as a whole and invites the reader to contemplate the continuing need for present commitment in the life of faith.

Literary Conventions

In the development of this plan, the commentary generally has concerned itself with the exposition of rather large pericopes. This has resulted from careful observation of the literary markers present in the surface structure of the text itself. Three basic conventions dominate the literary architecture: concentricity, parallel panels, and repetitive resumptions.

Concentricity. In concentric arrangements the members of the second half of a bicolon, sentence, or other literary unitecho, repeat, or recall the members of the first half in inverted order, in the form AB … B'A’. If there are only four members, the concentric arrangement is properly a chiasmus, named after the physical similarity to the Greek letter X (chi) when the members are arranged as follows:

Of the numerous instances of this construction in both Old and New Testaments, Jesus’ words in Mark 2:27 will serve as a simple illustration:

A The sabbath

B was made for humankind,

B' and not humankind

A' for the sabbath

When more than two pairs of members occur, that is, when there is a series of three or more pairings, the structure is properly a concentric arrangement in the form ABC … C'B'A'. The offensive imprecation at the heart of Psalm 58, in its Hebrew word order, is a clear example:

A O God

B break

C their teeth in their mouth

C' the fangs of the lions

B' break out

A' O L ORD

(v.7, RSV [v.6, NRSV])

Frequently, a central member (X) will function as a hinge, or turning point, in the unit: ABC … X … C'B'A'. Occasionally—but not always!—this central member, thus set in rhetorical exposure, contains the main point of the author. Numbers 15:35–36, again following the word order of the original, displays the hingelike, pivoting function of a central, unparalleled member:

A Then the L ORD said to Moses ,

B "The man shall be put to death;

C they shall stone him with stones,

D all the congregation, outside the camp."

X THEN THEY BROUGHT HIM OUT,

D' all the congregation, outside the camp,

C' and stoned him with stones

B' to death

A' as the L ORD commanded Moses .

In this configuration, A-D relates God’s command, while D’-A’ relates its (literal!) execution, the congregation’s step-by-step carrying out of the command, after the turning point (X).

As illustrated in the commentary, concentricity is the primary structural device employed in Ezra–Nehemiah, appearing at every level of the text. In Ezra not only are the three major units (chapters 1–6, 7–8, and 9–10) so structured but the majority of their subunits (1:7–11, 4:8–23, 5:1–6:22; 7:1b–5, 7:11–26; 9:1–10:1a, 10:1b–44) are as well.

In Nehemiah a similar situation exists. In addition to the extensive concentric arrangement of the so-called Nehemiah Memoir (Neh. 1:1b—7:3, with concentrically arranged subunits and sections: 1:1b—2:20, 1:5–11a, 2:11–16, 2.17–20; 3:1–4:23, 4:7–23; 6:1–7:3), the Covenant Renewal passage (7:73b—10:39), which itself is structured according to the principle of parallel panels (see below), the Dedication Service (12: 27–43), and the later reforms of Nehemiah (12:44–13:13) employ concentric arrangements to a great extent (8:13–18, 9:5b–37, 9:38–10:39; 12:27–31, 37–40, 43; 12:44–13:13).

Concentricity’s principal value, at least in this portion of Scripture, lies in helping the reader to determine the extent of literary units, as well as revealing the inner logic of the units so identified. Biblical narratives in general, and Old Testament narratives in particular, are frequently characterized as monotonous and repetitious by those who consciously or unconsciously apply the stylistic conventions of a language with a varied vocabulary and rich in synonyms, such as English, to Hebrew. But if the repetitions function structurally rather than stylistically, this negative, ethnocentric judgment loses its force. More importantly, the structural significance of the repetitions can be utilized in keeping with their intended function.

Parallel Panels. On occasion, particularly where the temporal flow of a unit would be obscured by a concentric ordering of the material, parallel panels, in the form Panel I ABCD … Panel II A'B'C'D', where the echoes and/or repetitions are not inverted but follow the same sequence, serve to structure the unit. As is the case with the more usual concentric arrangement, this structural device enhances the juxtaposition of similar material and helps in the proper delimitation of literary units. Paul uses this device in I Corinthians 3:6–7 to good effect:

APanel I

A I planted,

B Apollos watered,

C but God gave the growth (v. 6).

APanel II

A' So neither the one who plants

B' nor the one who waters is anything,

C' but only God who gives the growth (v. 7).

In Ezra–Nehemiah, the most significant use of parallel panels as a structuring device occurs in Nehemiah 7:73b—10:39, where each of the three scenes that constitute the narrative (7:73b—8:12; 8:13–18; 9:1–10:39) follows the same sequence:

As the commentary will make clear, we are thus encouraged to read Nehemiah 7:73b—10:39 as a unit that culminates in the people’s response to the law and focuses our attention on the renewal of the congregation rather than on Ezra’s reading of the law, as is usually the case.

Other significant instances of parallel panels in Ezra–Nehemiah, include:

1. Nehemiah 6:1–9 and 6:10–14, in which the first two of three schemes designed to intimidate Nehemiah share the same four-stage progression;

2. Nehemiah 12:32–36 and 12:38–42, which present the two thanksgiving processionals that march around the rebuilt walls at the dedication service in parallel fashion;

3. Nehemiah 13:15–22 and 13:23–29, which parallel Nehemiah’s reforming activity after his second return; and

4. Part One of the entire work (Ezra 1:1—Neh. 7:3), which parallels the three returns from Babylon under Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as outlined above. The proposal of Torrey, followed by many others, that Nehemiah 8–10 originally followed either Ezra 8 or Ezra 10 and should be so repositioned, however plausible this may be on historical grounds, fails to take adequate account of the clear structuring of the received text.

The schematic arrangement of these and other parallel panels, as well as the concentric arrangements listed above, can be found in the discussion of these passages in the commentary.

Repetitive Resumption. Of less overall significance—but of crucial importance for the interpretation of Ezra 4:6–24—is the literary convention of repetitive resumption first observed in these books by S. Talmon (IDBSup, p. 322). In repetitive resumptions the thread of an interrupted narrative is picked up by repeating the last clause prior to the interruption, though generally with some textual variation, thus indicating the digressionary character of the interruption.

Talmon discerns four such instances in the narrative of Ezra–Nehemiah:

1. Ezra 4:6–24 digresses from the summary notation of Ezra 4:4–5, which is picked up again in 4:24b, the reign of King Darius of Persia.

2. Ezra 6:19–22a is shown to be digressionary by 6:16b’s mention of the joy the people experienced at the completion of the temple in 6:22b.

3. Ezra 2:2–69, the long